• Email
  • Print

Redevelopment Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes

Redevelopment Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes




June 8, 2006

4:00 PM


The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM by Chairman Daybell



Chairman Daybell; Committee Members Cha, Duncan, Hoban and Larsen



Tom Dalton, S. Emily Evans, and Patty Galente


Acting Chief Planner Eastman, Acting Senior Planner Allen, and Clerical Staff Leopold


MOTION made by Committee Member Hoban, SECONDED by Committee Member Larsen and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present to APPROVE May 25 minutes AS WRITTEN.


Item No. 1


Acting Senior Planner Allen provided a staff report for a request of a Minor Development Project to (1) demolish existing dwelling in a preservation zone and (2) construct a 1,298 s.f. two story residence and 450 s.f. dwelling unit above a 2-story garage located at 220 and 220 1/2 N. Lincoln Avenue (Generally located on the east side of Lincoln, approximately 273 ft. north of Wilshire) (R-2P Zone) (Categorically Exempt under Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines). (Continued from December 8, 2005, February 23, 2006, and May 25, 2006 meetings) (HAL).

Chairman Daybell stated that he and Committee Member Cha were not present at the prior meeting regarding this project.

Acting Senior Planner Allen highlighted the issues that were discussed at the last meeting and presented what has been done since that meeting.She stated that the recommendation for the trellis structure at the entrance to the front building be flat rather than arched has been addressed.The location of the windows on the south elevation around the chimney has been adjusted so that the windows are equally spaced on either side of the chimney.Also, the floor plan has been modified to eliminate the window in the bedroom of the front unit; the floor plan and south elevation are now consistent.The windows on the alley side of the rear dwelling unit have been reduced in size and stated that she assumed they are proposed as clearstory.Staff recommends they be conditioned to be clearstory. The larger window for exiting from the bedroom has been moved around to the side.

Acting Senior Planner Allen stated there was discussion at the previous meeting regarding the size of the bedroom on the second floor of the rear dwelling.At this time, there has not been a modification made. She stated that the applicant would prefer not to decrease the size of the living room in order to increase the size of the bedroom.The current proposal has already maximized floor area for a development project where all buildings are being removed from the site.

Chairman Daybell asked staff if what is being presented is now in compliance with Zoning Code requirements?Acting Senior Planner Allen answered yes.

Committee Member Hoban asked about the height of the chimney?Acting Senior Planner Allen said the chimney height will be reviewed in the plan check process and will likely have to be slightly higher.

Committee Member Hoban asked if lighting details were provided.Matt Howe, applicant, interjected that he had brought brochures and noted the reference to the plans that the lights are proposed on a timer.

Acting Chief Planner Eastman clarified the interpretation of clearstory windows.For a window to be classified as clearstory, the bottom of the window must be located a minimum of 6 ft above the finished floor.

Committee Member Hoban noted that as discussed at the prior meeting, storage has been added under the staircase at the rear dwelling and that the “colonial curve” has been eliminated on the front dwelling.

The applicant, Matt Howe, explained that the proposed windows are Anderson casement wood windows and will match what is in the neighborhood.He stated that the lighting in the alley will be on a timer and wanted to go with the oil rub bronze color because the doors are mahogany and will be stained.

Committee Member Hoban reiterated the concern expressed at the prior meeting that the lights needed to be shielded downward rather than lantern style.

Mr. Howe explained that in order to make the bedroom larger he would have to ask for a variance.Acting Senior Planner Allen explained that due to the project being a full tear down of the existing house on the property, the floor area is restricted to 35 percent, whereas if a unit was preserved he would be able to construct at 40 percent.The issue is whether he would be requesting a variance or zoning adjustment for the additional percentage.

Acting Chief Planner Eastman stated that the other option would be to reduce the size of the living space in order to increase the bedroom.He stated the project as presently proposed goes on to the Landmarks’ Commission for final approval.

Public hearing opened.

Resident Patty Galente stated she was mainly concerned about maintaining her privacy.While she prefers a one-story structure, she is pleased with the changes to the windows on the rear dwelling.

Tom Dalton, Fullerton Heritage, stated he agreed with Ms. Galente’s comments and still supports the idea of a one-story structure, but understands two units can be built on that lot and stated that the setback is substantial.

Public hearing closed.

Committee Member Hoban stated the project is acceptable as presented and the applicant made an effort to make the modifications that the Committee suggested from the last meeting. He is in support of the project.

Committee Member Larsen is in support of the project and stated that the applicant made most of the changes discussed at the previous meeting.

Committee Member Cha stated he was not in attendance at the previous meeting and didn’t have any comments.

Committee Member Duncan stated he is in support of the project and appreciated that the applicant made the revisions recommended by the Committee.He stated that the project will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.

Chairman Daybell stated he was not present at the last meeting, but is in support of the project.He stated his opinion that the owner can’t be denied the right to build a two-story home.

Acting Senior Planner Allen clarified that the conditions of the project would be those listed in the staff report from the last meeting on May 25 with the following modifications:

  • Condition No. 2 will be removed.It concerned the arch and the columns on the rear unit and has been addressed.

  • An addition will be made to Condition No. 4 that the lights shall be incorporated into the east elevation of the garage to provide light in the alley and be shielded and placed on a timer.

  • Condition No. 7 needs to be modified to specifically indicate that the windows on the second story rear elevation of the garage shall be clearstory (6 ft. from finished floor to bottom of window).

Chairman Daybell recommended that Building and Safety be notified when the structure is built to make sure the windows end up as clearstory windows and are placed at the correct height.

MOTION made by Committee Member Hoban, SECONDED by Committee Member Larsen and CARRIED unanimously by all voting members present to recommend approval of the project to the Landmark’s Commission and incorporate the staff conditions from the previous staff report and as modified.

Acting Chief Planner Eastman stated there is no appeal for the project at this stage because it is not a final determination, only a recommendation.The project will go to the Landmarks’ Commission in the near future and notification will be sent out to the public regarding that meeting.The Landmarks’ Commission decision can be appealed.

Acting Chief Planner Eastman explained to the applicant the process to submit construction plans.


Acting Chief Planner Eastman discussed the June 6, 2006 City Council meeting.


MOTION made by Chairman Daybell, SECONDED by Committee Member Cha to ADJOURN meeting at 4:25 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ruth Leopold

Clerical Support